The exception I refer to in this matter is the assumption in the Biblical context that the Jews would be returned to their homeland at some point in history in fulfillment of prophesy. This assumption is the fairy tale, notably because that promise was referring to a spiritual, heavenly nation taken from twelve spiritual tribes of Israel and not literal tribes.(compare Revelation chapter 7 to Numbers chapter 1)

This expression,“the Israel of God,” was the expression used by Paul and only found once in Scripture at Ga 6:15, 16, refers to spiritual Israel rather than to racial descendants of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel, and shows that it has nothing to do with whether one is a circumcised descendant of Abraham or not. (Ge 32:22-28) The Bible speaks of “Israel in a fleshly way” (1Co 10:18), as well as spiritual Israel made up of those for whom descent from Abraham is not a requirement. (Mt 3:9)

The prophet Hosea foretold that God, would reject the nation of natural Israel in favor of this spiritual nation, which would also include Gentiles, with God saying “to those not my people: ‘You are my people.’” (Ho 2:23; Ro 9:22-25) As we have seen in recorded history, the Kingdom of God was indeed taken away from the nation of natural Jews in 70 C.E. and given to a spiritual nation bringing forth Kingdom fruitage. (Mt 21:43)

This is a significant point adding further to the conclusions you have clarified in your article. It’s important to realize that when God decrees something to occur, it will occur accurately and on time. Such has been the case with the destruction of ancient Babylon, even with God’s naming the one who would conquer Babylon, namely Cyrus, some two hundred years in advance, not to mention the numerous other Biblical prophesies that have seen fulfillment down through history.

As is typical with imperfect humans, they ignore so much, when if they would just pay attention to the facts of history, and most especially the facts concerning who really has the legal right to modern day Palestine, they would save themselves much frustration.
But of course, as you so nicely remind them, they do not pay attention.

I wonder if you realise what you’re saying by obvious implication if not explicitly? Because, for example, Americans ethnically cleansed the land they made their own, it was okay for Zionism to do the same.

If you had said that Zionism was by no means the only colonial enterprise to resort to ethnic cleansing, I would, of course, have agreed with you; and actually have frequently said and written so in the past.

There was nothing “fictional” or “rhetorical” about Zionism’s first round of ethnic cleansing in 1947/48. It happened. The most detailed and documented account of it is The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Professor Ilan Pappe, Israel’s leading “revisionist” (which means honest) historian.

For today the point is this. The consequences of Zionism’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine are not only still with us, but pose a most serious threat to the peace of the region and the world, and the well-being of all including the Jews of Israel and the world.

Sounds fair. On that basis, when will England be given back to the Ancient Britons, the United States to the Indigenous ‘Indians’, Tasmania (a state of Australia) to the Aboriginies. While we are at it, perhaps the African states north of the Sahara could be returned to the Bedouins.

All these are examples that fit with your preconditions for not being legitimate. At what point will you raise up arguments on behalf of these people (who have been at least as dispossessed as the Palestinians).

The problem with the international law argument is that there is in fact no such thing. Your argument is itself a fictional assumption, since the notion of laws pertaining to all countries has itself never been fully ratified in any setting.

Or does this ‘State X has no legal right to exist’ only apply to Israel?

But of course, you can always retreat to rhetoric, and claim that since I do dispute your ‘truths of history’ I must be a Zionist and thus (you seem to imply) should not be listened to.

Plus a reader at ICH has suggested that the Declaration was more to do with the price demanded by Zionists in return for bringing the US into WW1. Any thing to comment on that assertion?

Also you wrote that “…the General Assembly resolution …would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.”
Would a vote by the Security Council really have been more binding? Does the United Nations have a mandate to recognize states? The formation of either an Arab State and/or a Jewish State only came about as a result of the termination of the British Mandate.